 |
| |
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D
What were the concerns? That we would be too limited in our city placement options? |
Yes. Goal of the game was to add tactical choice and not taking them away.
We already are restrained by being unable to build for instance on desert, tundra and jungle. This is good, because these terrain types tend to exist in comparatively large patches and thus, create those unsettled areas, which will later be our battlegrounds and a permanent nuisance due to barbarians. The restriction on forest exists only, because it otherwise would be possible to plant it on tundra and then settle. It has no other tactical reason.
However, hills are everywhere, in desert areas, plains areas, grassland areas and tundra areas. To restraint settling on hills does not add to the main goal (more tactical options) by creating undercrowded maps. At the countrary, it takes options away, because now the players can not decide to use the defense bonus the hills provide.
By the way, the turn was sent to Krill quite a while ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel2D
|
|
ACS Staff Member / Hosted Site Admin
|
 |
Upper Midwest
Feb 2003
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The restriction on forest exists only, because it otherwise would be possible to plant it on tundra and then settle. It has no other tactical reason.
However, hills are everywhere, in desert areas, plains areas, grassland areas and tundra areas. To restraint settling on hills does not add to the main goal (more tactical options) by creating undercrowded maps. At the countrary, it takes options away, because now the players can not decide to use the defense bonus the hills provide. |
I'm not sure if this was originally my suggestion, but choice of city placement seems like an extremely minor part of tactics considering all the space we will have to deal with once we start to build up our militaries. Besides, being an elimination game, I would think that once development reached beyond a few core cities, building on hills would not be an option any more, but an automatic decision. One of the few changes from Civ II to III that wasn't for the better IMO was giving hill cities the same amount of food as others...
[edit: Besides, if hills are everywhere and we could settle on them, we could then place cities in the middle of deserts, tundra and swamps to further crowd the map.]
BTW- are we allowed to plant forests in the mod?
Last edited by Rommel2D on 30-08-2004 at 21:21
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2004 07:32
|